Uttaranchal Court September 2010 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Anil Bhatla S/O Krishna Lal and anr Vs. District Judge, Haridwar and o ...
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Sep-03-2010
1). By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the petitioners have sought quashing of the order dated 17.05.2005, passed by Sessions Judge, Haridwar, in Criminal Revision No. 107 of 2004. The order dated 17.04.2004, passed by Special Judicial Magistrate (Second), Haridwar, in Criminal Complaint Case No. 877 of 2003, Jasbeer Kaur v. Anil Bhatla and others is also sought to be quashed. 2) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the papers on record. 3) Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 3 Jasbeer Kaur filed a Criminal Complaint Case No. 877 of 2003, before the trial court, relating to offences punishable under Section 120-B, 406, 420, 506, 467 of I.P.C., police station Ranipur, District Haridwar. It is alleged in the criminal complaint by respon...
Pankaj Kumar Vs. Judge Family Court and anr
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Sep-03-2010
1. This revision is directed against judgment and order dated 14.05.2004, passed by Judge Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar, whereby said court has directed the revisionist to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 800/- per month to his wife and Rs. 300/- per month to his daughter. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the revisionist Pankaj Kumar got married to respondent no. 2 Manju Sharma on 07.12.1996, in District Udham Singh Nagar. It appears that after the birth of their daughter Ankita, their relations soured, and they started living separately. Respondent no.2 Manju Sharma filed an application under section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C) for maintenance for herself and for her daughter alleging that her husband earns Rs. 10,000/- per month. 4. The revisionist contested that application under section 125 Cr.P.C., but admitted that he was married to the respondent ...
Nitai S/O Susheel Vs. State of Uttarakhand
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Sep-01-2010
1. Heard Mr. A.S. Gill and Mr. Milind Raj, Advocates for the applicant and Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is permanent resident of India and is residing in Village Sanjay Colony, P.S. Nuriya, District Pilibhit since last 40 years. 3. In support of this fact, he has filed copy of ration card of the year 1995 and a certificate issued by Village Pradhan telling that the applicant is residing in aforestated address from last 43 years. He has also filed copy of marksheet of his son Dilip Adhikari of the year 2003-04 which also shows that the applicant is permanently residing in India with his family. 4. It is further argued that only the recovery of counterfeit notes has been made from the possession of the applicant, which comes u/s 489C of IPC and which is a bailable offence. It is pleaded that the applicant is in jail since 20.12.2009 and has got no previous criminal history. 5. Having considered the submissio...
Dr. Nakli Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Sep-01-2010
1. Heard Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate for the revisionist and Mr. Nandan Arya, AGA for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent. 2. The applicant by means of the present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has challenged the proceeding initiated against him for an offence under Section 193 of I.P.C. 3. Brief facts of the case are that a complaint was filed by the applicant against certain persons being Complaint Case No. 105 of 1991 under Section 420/406 I.P.C. In the said complaint after due process, the case proceeded against the accused persons, who were ultimately acquitted by the trial Court. However, the trial Court while acquitting the accused also observed that the present applicant in his deposition to the Court as a witness had given false evidence and therefore, the Court suo moto took cognizance of the offence under Section 193 of I.P.C. and initiated proceeding against him in the same order dated 29.3.2006. In short, the matter now proceeded against the applicant under ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›